Resolution 1757 (2007) Adopted by 10-0 . Five members abstained : China , Indonesia, Qatar, Russian Federation, South Africa

Statements

Speaking before the vote, NASSIR ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER ( Qatar) affirmed his Government’s position on the establishment of justice and opposing impunity, which was consistent with the Charter. Like other delegations, Qatar continued to call for uncovering the truth regarding Mr. Hariri’s assassination, in line with the aspirations of the Lebanese people, in all its factions, in order to punish the perpetrators of that “outrageous crime”. In that spirit, Qatar had not hesitated to support the establishment of the International Independent Investigation Commission and subsequently voted in favour of relevant Council resolutions. That had paved the way for the establishment of the Tribunal, which enjoyed consensus among all Lebanese factions. Qatar had clearly indicated its position on the legal aspects of the constitutional process by which agreement was concluded between the United Nations and the Lebanese Government to establish the Tribunal.

He said that Qatar remained committed to helping Lebanon seek the truth and hold accountable those involved in those crimes, but it felt at the same time, that the draft now before the Council “entailed legal encroachments known to all”. That might not promote national détente, and could further complicate the situation in a country, that, at present, was in dire need of national cohesion and political stability. In spite of those difficulties, Qatar had been quite willing to consider the draft in a positive spirit in hopes of reaching a consensus formula, but the insistence of the sponsors to submit the text under Chapter VII -- although all Security Council resolutions were mandatory according to Article 25 of the Charter -- went beyond the designated aim of endorsing the establishment of the Tribunal, especially in light of the “complicated, delicate, political situation in Lebanon”.

Qatar was simply apprehensive that the draft under Chapter VII would not bring stability to the country. Qatar would, therefore, abstain in the vote, but would continue to pursue its good offices to bring points of view in Lebanon closer, to help ensure national unity in support of the Agreement to establish the Tribunal through national mechanisms.

HASAN KLEIB ( Indonesia) pointed out that Article 19 of the tribunal agreement stated clearly that it would enter into force on the day after the Government of Lebanon had notified the United Nations that the internal legal requirements for entry into force had been met. If adopted, the draft resolution would bypass constitutional procedure and national processes. There was no legal ground for the Security Council to take over an issue that was domestic in nature. Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter stressed that nothing contained in it would authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters that were essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.

He said that, although that provision did not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII, the Council should not be involved in interpreting, let alone taking over, the constitutional requirements that a State should comply with in the conduct of its authorities. Before taking action on the text, which was intended to uphold justice, the Council should consider fully the domestic situation in Lebanon, he stressed. The Council’s interference in the national constitutional process on the establishment of the Tribunal would not serve the greater interests of the Lebanese people, namely reconciliation, national unity, peace and stability. Seeking justice should neither create new problems nor exacerbate the already intricate situation in Lebanon. In light of those considerations, the Indonesian delegation would abstain from the vote.

DUMISANI S. KUMALO ( South Africa) said that his delegation unequivocally condemned the assassination of Mr. Hariri and other Lebanese leaders. Indeed, there was a consensus among all Lebanese parties of the need to bring the perpetrators of those crimes to justice. That had been the motive behind establishing the International Independent Investigation Commission and had paved the way for the establishment of a Special Tribunal. South Africa expected the Tribunal to act within the highest standards of international law, and it placed high importance on Lebanese ownership of the Tribunal and its work. South Africa hoped that the Lebanese Government would use the time between today and 10 June to reach a consensus decision at the domestic level on the establishment of the Tribunal, so that it would not be imposed by the Council.

Indeed, he said that his delegation believed that it was inappropriate for the Council to impose such a Tribunal on Lebanon, particularly under Chapter VII. To that end, South Africa had often called on the Council to be judicious in its invocation of that Article. By resorting to such a measure, the Council was contravening its own mandate under the Charter. With this action today, there was the possibility of further destabilizing the already fragile Lebanese State. Adopting the text as it stood might also politicize international law. South Africa was also concerned about the precedent that today’s action would be setting, he said, adding that South Africa would, regrettably, abstain in the vote.

WANG GUANGYA ( China) said his delegation would abstain from the vote, while deeply deploring the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri and others. China had all along supported a fair and independent investigation into that crime and hoped that the tribunal initiative would help establish, as soon as possible, the truth of the matter and do justice for the victims. China also hoped that political and diplomatic efforts would facilitate a solution as soon as possible.

Stressing that the tribunal was essentially a domestic matter for Lebanon, he said that, by invoking Chapter VII, the resolution was arbitrarily deciding on the statute’s entry into force, which would give rise to problems and create a precedent of Council interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign State. Several members had expressed the hope that the draft would be more prudent and balanced, but that had not been the case. China had no choice but to abstain. Hopefully, at the present trying moment, the Council would stand united in promoting stability and peace in Lebanon, and refrain from triggering new tensions in the already volatile region.

VITALY I. CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said that his delegation had consistently advocated establishing the truth regarding Mr. Hariri’s assassination. Considering the fragility of the political situation on the ground in Lebanon, and the deep rift in Lebanese society and government structures, it was incumbent upon the Council to adopt a balanced resolution that would not cause further problems. The Russian Federation had negotiated for a more balanced text, but the one before the Council, which unilaterally imposed a decision on Lebanon, was fraught with legal inconsistencies.

He said that a basis for adopting the resolution under Chapter VII did not exist. That measure had been invoked in the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which both dealt with international crimes against humanity and genocide, which was not the case for Lebanon. The Council’s action today, before negotiations had been concluded in Lebanon, could be seen as interfering in Lebanese affairs. The hasty tabling of a vote on a resolution with considerable legal shortcomings had forced Russia to abstain.

JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIÈRE ( France), welcoming the text’s adoption, said that, since an internal solution had not been found, it was an important decision for reasons of justice. It opened the door for the trial of those who were guilty of the assassination of the former Prime Minister and other such terrorist assassinations committed since October 2004. It was also important for peace in Lebanon. The refusal to accept impunity was an essential guarantee of peace. The Council could be proud of not having resigned itself to the stalemate in Lebanon and that of having assumed its responsibility to help Lebanon.

EMYR JONES PARRY ( United Kingdom), also welcoming the adoption of the resolution, said the proposed Tribunal was vital for Lebanon, for justice and for the region. Efforts to establish an internal tribunal had been thwarted and the Council’s decision was, therefore, not a capricious intervention or interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State. It was a decision properly taken for action to break a long-standing impasse. The adoption of the text under Chapter VII carried no connotation other than making it binding. Hopefully, all parties in Lebanon would now be able to move forward.

JORGE VOTO-BERNALES ( Peru) reiterated his delegation’s firm position to combat impunity and end all acts of terrorism in all its forms. With that in mind, Peru had supported the Council’s action today, especially given the need to ensure that justice was done, which was essential to restoring peace and security in Lebanon and elsewhere. Further, a majority of the Lebanese Parliament had clearly supported the establishment by the Council of the Tribunal. He hoped that the Parliament could be convened so that it could complete the internal constitutional process that would lead to the establishment of the Tribunal in the allotted time. Peru believed that the imposition of Chapter VII should not constitute a precedent and should only apply to this particular case.

JOHAN C. VERBEKE ( Belgium) said that, through the adoption of the resolution, the Council had reaffirmed its stance to ensure stability and peace in Lebanon. The fight against impunity was essential to that effort. His delegation had decided to support and co-sponsor the text and believed that it was not an attempt to prejudice the decisions to be made by the Government. He hoped that implementation of the resolution and the establishment of the Tribunal would promote stability and strengthen the rule of law, which was the aim of the Lebanese Government.

DUŠAN MATULAY ( Slovakia), stressing that impunity must never be tolerated, said the establishment of the Tribunal was necessary in order to bring the perpetrators of the assassination to justice. Unfortunately, all available means had been exhausted and the Council had to assume its responsibilities. The resolution of the issue would contribute to national reconciliation in Lebanon.

MARCELLO SPATAFORA ( Italy) said the text flagged the Council’s strong support for the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, and the belief that justice was a condition for national reconciliation and stability. Hopefully, internal players would find the right path to implement the Tribunal agreement in the coming weeks.

Council President ZALMAY KHALILZAD ( United States), speaking in his national capacity, said that, by adopting the text, the Council had demonstrated its commitment to the principle that there would be no impunity for political assassinations, in Lebanon or elsewhere. Those who had killed Rafiq Hariri, and so many others, would be brought to justice and held responsible for their crimes. Those who might be tempted to commit similar crimes would know there would be consequences for perpetuating Lebanon’s troubled history of political violence and intimidation. It had been necessary and right for the Council to act.

Recalling that the Council had approved the tribunal agreement and statute on 21 November 2006, he said that, since that time, Lebanon’s legitimate and democratically elected Government and parliamentary majority had tried every possible means to convince the Speaker of Parliament to fulfil his constitutional responsibility to convene Parliament so that final action could be taken, but to no avail. Several influential parties had visited Lebanon in an effort to find a framework in which Parliament could be convened. They included the Arab League, United Nations Legal Counsel Nicolas Michel and the Secretary-General himself. After five months of tireless efforts to reach a solution, the Prime Minister had sent the Secretary-General a letter asking that the matter be put before the Council for a “binding” decision to establish the Special Tribunal. The Secretary-General had endorsed that request one day later, after concluding that all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted.

He said the United States would have preferred that the Lebanese ratify the tribunal agreement and statute, but that had not been possible. In the days ahead, all parties were urged to act responsibly and abide by their obligations to support Lebanon’s sovereignty and political independence. The United States had concluded that failure to act in support of Lebanon was unacceptable. There could be no peace and stability without justice. The United States reaffirmed its support for Lebanon and, with the passage of the resolution, it was confident that the Security Council would live up to its commitment to support Lebanon in its pursuit of justice.

TARIK MITRI, Minister of Culture and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lebanon, said that the Security Council had never hesitated in expressing its support and commitment to Lebanon and its sovereignty and independence in the wake of the Mr. Hariri’s assassination and the political assassination of other Lebanese leaders. The Council’s action today, binding under Chapter VII, left no doubt of its continued support. The Council had also stood by Lebanon in the face of Israeli aggression last year and had called on the international community to play its role in ending that crisis. He reiterated that the Council’s action today, which had been “meticulously considered”, would underpin efforts to ensure peace and stability in Lebanon.

The sponsors of the text had enhanced the credibility of the Council and the wider United Nations, he said, adding that even those that had abstained in the vote had, nevertheless, expressed their commitment to the prime importance of the establishment of a tribunal to bring about justice and end impunity. He also thanked the Secretary-General for his unswerving commitment to the establishment of the Special Tribunal, which had been “at the top of his list” since his election. He assured the Council that all efforts had been taken, right up to the time of the present meeting, to ensure that domestic actions would lead to the acceptance of the agreement on the establishment of the Tribunal. Nevertheless, despite the fact that a majority of Parliamentarians had supported the Tribunal, its adoption had met with countless obstacles.

The Tribunal would act as a deterrent to those who would commit heinous acts, and would enhance freedom and allow the people of the country to live free from fear of such action. The Council’s creation of the Tribunal was not a victory of one party over another: “Justice will be the victor,” he declared. The resolution did not pit one group against another or play one part of the international community against another. It would strengthen unity, strengthen judicial systems and strengthen the hopes of the Lebanese people, all of whom were striving to move forward in the name of justice and stability. With the resolution just adopted, the Council was bearing in mind all assassinations in Lebanon, which threatened peace and security in Lebanon and around the world. With the adoption of the text, his Government would commemorate the memory of Mr. Hariri and all martyrs brought down by terrorist hands.

Picture: UN Security Council

Sources: UN.org